National Republican., 1887-02-10
THE HOIrsE-

purposes and to provide heavy ordnance
adapted to modern naval warfare.
Mr.. Reed, Of Maine, asked unanimous
consent for the immediate consideration Of
the bill.
Mr.. Holman, Of Indiana, objected.
Mr. Reed then asked that It be made a
special order for Monday next, but encoun-
tered an objection from Mr. Eden, Of Il
linois.
Mr.. Reed inquired TO what committee
the bill would be referred under the rules.
The speaker replied that the bill would
go under the rules TO the committee on ap.
propriations.
Mr.. Reed inquired II the bill was one
which the committee on appropriations
would have the right TO report at any time
for immediate consideration. He wanted,
he said, to fix the responsibility OF q refusal
to fortify the country upon the gentlemen
upon whom 1t ought to rest, and he wanted
to fix the responsibility upon the Demo-
cratic party.
The speaker stated that in its nature the
bill was for the support Of the government
and would come under the rule which al
lowed the committee on appropriations to
report Mt any time.
Mr.. Reed. Then the committee would
have the right to report upon that bill dur
ing this session.
Mr.. Cutcheon, Of Michigan, raised the
point Of order that the bill should be re.
ferred to the committee on military af-
fairs.
The speaker overruled the point OF order,
and stated that the bill should be referred 10
the committee on appropriations.
Mr. Randall. OF Pennsylvania, inquired
as to the chairs decision that the committee
had the right to report at any time.
The speaker stated that he had had very
little time to look at the provisions Of the
bill. IL II was a bill for the construction of
Notifications or for the support Of any de-
partment Of the government, II came within
the rule allowing the committee to report at
any time.
Mr.. Reed stated that his object in making
his inquiry was very simple. 1t was to
have the bill referred to committee which
had the right to report at any time, so that
some responsibility might rest somewhere
II there was failure to report. The
speaker having declared the parliamentary
rule, he was satisfied.
The speaker said that he had expressed
the opinion, upon hasty reading of the
bill, that 1t came within the rule that
would allow the committee on appropri-
ations to report 1t at any time.
The bill was then referred to the com.
mittee on appropriations.
The speaker also laid before the House
Senate bill providing for the manufacture
of ordnance for army purposes and making
appropriations for coast defenses.
In response to question by Mr.. Reed,
the speaker stated that this bill would also
go to the committee on appropriations.
Mr.. Reed inquired whether the bill could
be reported for immediate consideration.
The speaker replied that he had so stated
In response to an inquiry In regard to a
similar bill. But II the chair was convinced
hereafter by argument that the statement
he had madp wae ipcDrrnnt hp yynul1 mot
hesitate to retract It.
Mr.. Reed asked the chair to allow him to
explain his persistence in this matter. This
was question for the chair to decide be-
cause that decision might govern the action
Of the House. II the House desired this
bill to be sent to committee which could
report at any time, that was very impor-
tant fact for the House to be In possession
OF, and the only person to whom the House
could apply for the statement Of fact was
its organ, the speaker. Therefore, he had
asked the speakers opinion on the subject.
II the speaker should make mistake on
this question, OF course the speaker would
afford the House an oppo tunity to rectify
its decision on the question OF reference.
The Speaker. II the chair is correct In de-
Gliding that this bill properly goes under
the rule to the appropriation committee,
then II would follow that the committee
may report at any time.
bill to the committee on appropriations
gives 1t that power.
The Speaker. The, House does not send
II there. The speaker sends 1t there under
the rules.
The bill was referred to the committee on
appropriations.
In the morning hour the House resumed
the consideration Of the bill changing the
mode OF compensation to United States
district attorneys, marshals, and commits.
sioners.
Mr.. Rogers, of Arkansas, made sharp
onslaught upon the measure, declaring
that 1t was loosely and crudely prepared,
picking out flaws In various provisions,
and illustrating the want Of care shown in
the framing Of the bill by asserting that
one of the sections Of the Revised Statutes,
which 1t is proposed to amend has refer
ence to an entirely different matter from
that with which the bill deals.
Mr.. Gibson, Of West Virginia, intimated
that the gentleman's opposition arose from
the fact that the compensation of the OFF,
GERS In his district was interfered with.
This imputation Mr.. Rogers Indignantly
denied, and retorted with vague insinua-
tion that, In respect to this bill, "the Niger
in the wood pile" was certain officer In q
certain district in Virginia.
Mr. Rogers continued to take up the
provisions of the bill seriatim and to criti-
else and ridicule them in manner which
brought forth numerous Interruptions from
Mr.. Gibson; and at times the controversy
between the two gentlemen was tinged with
personalities. Mr.. Rogers declared that the
committee on expenditures In the Depart
ment OF Justice did net understand the sub.
ject upon which 1t attempted to legislate,
and did not even appear to understand the
English language, and in q colloQuy with
Mr.. Gibson congratulated that gentleman's
constituency upon having retired him from
public life.
Mr.. Gibson, who had reported the bill,
said that the gentleman from Arkansas had
seen fit by innuendo to refer to the fact that
one OF the officers provided for In the bill
was brother of his (Mr. Gibson), a district
attorney In the state OF Virginia. There
could be no other construction placed upon
the language used than that OF a personal
imputation upon the motives, character,
and honesty OF the man who had reported
the bill. He did not mean either here or
elsewhere to submit tamely 10 such an ar
rogant and impudent statement. 1t would
have better befitted the gentleman to have
credited to Others the same honesty he
claimed for himself. That gentleman, who
claimed TO be here as the representative OF
the officers of his district, was the only man
who dared to impugn the motives OF the
man reporting this bill. The gentleman
had referred to the fact that he had not
been reelected. Perhaps II he had been a
politician using ring methods-perhaps II
lie had been demagogue-he might have
been reelected, as the gentleman had been.
He was confident that the House would
not attribute any false or improper motives
to the committee which reported the bill,
such as the gentleman intlmated; but he
wished to say on this floor that In saying
that a single feature of the bill was framed
on account of his (Mr. Gibson's) brother
being district attorney In Virginia, the
gentleman slandered him foully and falsely
resented.
Mr.. Rogers said that he had no eulogy co
offer bis own constituents, but II he had